The word “chainsaw” flickers onto the computer screen. A cartoonish figure unleashes a guttural scream as a whirring sound blares in the background. The metallic fighter buries a chainsaw into his adversary’s skull. All is black and white, other than the red blood that splashes from the virtual victim’s head.

To the state of California, Nintendo Wii’s “Mad World” video game, expected to be released in the spring, is just the sort of gore-filled virtual play that justifies a 2005 law barring the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. But in the courts, the efforts of California and other states to regulate violent video games have been carved up and tossed aside like one of those unfortunate video game characters.

Wednesday, California will attempt to revive its anti-violent-video-game law in a federal appeals court. During a hearing in Sacramento, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will review a San Jose federal judge’s 2007 ruling finding the law violates the First Amendment.

For Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials, the law is a simple effort to curb a perceived link between mayhem-filled video games and youth violence. To the video game industry and video game consumers, the law is a misguided effort that tries to replace the role of parents in deciding what video games their children can play. And both sides are clinging to their positions like an entranced teenager gripping a Wii remote.

“This is the same technology the armed forces use to help soldiers kill the enemy,” said state Sen. Leland Yee, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote the legislation. “All we’re saying is, ‘Don’t sell it to kids.’ “

The video game industry and video gamer groups insist the state’s rationale for regulating certain video games — to combat teen violence — rests on “flimsy generalizations.” The movie and music industries also have weighed in, arguing that the law is so broad it could affect the sale of classic movies that depict graphic violence, from “Saving Private Ryan” to Schwarzenegger’s own “Terminator” flicks.

“The same argument has been made again and again throughout the history of the country about books, about movies, about comic books and now about video games,” said Jennifer Mercurio, director of government affairs for a national group that represents “America’s gamers.” “The way this law is drafted comes up against hundreds of years of First Amendment issues.”

To date, the courts have uniformly ruled against such laws, concluding they cast too broad a net that threatens the free-speech rights of game makers. U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte, in striking down California’s law, also found there was insufficient documentary evidence of a connection between violent videos and violence in children.

The law would have prevented those under 18 from buying or renting games that “appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards.” In addition, the law required video game publishers to put an “18” label prominently on excessively violent games. Retailers would face a $1,000 fine for violations.

Most games sold in stores are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, which encourages retailers to bar minors from buying games rated “M” for mature and “A” for adults. But Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, representing the Schwarzenegger administration, argues the ratings don’t do enough.

“It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing a character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being,” he wrote in a court brief.

Legions of video game aficionados insist laws will not make a difference in video game habits.

“Parents buy violent video games for their kids because they either don’t know any better, or they believe their children can handle mature games,” said Allison Schubert, co-founder of a Web site, Lunabean.com, that follows such issues. “Either way, parents and kids would benefit from video game education, not video game laws.”